Book Reviews 


The Rules: Time-Tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Right.

By Ellen Fein & Sherrie Schneider

Book Review by William A. Spriggs, Oct. 5, 2004

Basically, all of human evolutionary psychology boils down to how we, as humans, solve the every day problem/s of how to pass our genes into the next generation. And you're sitting there, reading this book review, because your biological parents solved that problem. Perhaps, the thought never occurred to you that everything you do is toward this biological goal, and reading this book review may seem far from a biological purpose, but that is what makes us humans so special.

Some evolutionary psychologists dwell on the primal, biological origins of how humans evolved this or that behavior, but I tend to dwell in the real world of knowing that genes and nurture mix in human behavior with never losing a strong tie to the evolutionary perspective. Human behavior includes planning, choosing and executing specific behaviors for a purpose -- whether they are short term to satiate an immediate need, such as eating, or long-term, as in selecting a mate. All of these behaviors, which have a biological core, are transformed into what we call human behavior when we make free-willed choices.

Despite our many scientific advances in reproduction, we humans still primarily pass our genes the old-fashioned way by having sex with a member of the opposite sex. Science has separated human mating into three major parts: 1st, comes the sexual LUST; the 2nd, is ATTRACTION; and the 3rd, is ATTACHMENT. ( Helen Fisher, Lust, Attraction, and Attachment in Mammalian Reproduction, Journal Human Nature, p. 23, Viol. 9, No.1, 1998). The Rules, is about the ATTACHMENT part of relationships between human males and females, and before I review the book, let's take a quick look at the 1st and 2nd parts.

The first part is totally biological and starts in the brain. I'm not going to go into depth about brain architecture here because of the length required, but the sex urge is similar in nature to static electricity.(For those interested, to quote Helen Fisher above, "The sex drive is regulated, in large part, by the preoptic area of the anterior hypothalamus, which is one source of gonadotropin-relesing hormone GnRH". P.27). Nature's machinery has designed the sexual urge to build up like a static charge in order to be discharged when needed or at intermediate intervals when chosen by the human mind. This charge, of course, is strongest in humans during the peak mating years (from 18-35); this "charge" is particularly stronger in males because they have less to invest in the reproductive process - it is also why females are more "picky," because the investment is so great.

Many would argue that humans throughout history have suppressed this sexual build-up successfully -- in fact, in some religions, it is considered "immoral" to have lustful thoughts - but my counter-argument is that yes, humans are mentally capable of suppressing the biological urge that requires release, but history is also full of incidents of sexual atrocities occurring amongst people who, not allowed to participate in sexual activities with other humans, and no longer satisfied with the release of the sexual urge through self-manipulation, found release of those urges in surreptitious or substitute methods. The most recent of these incidents (that made it into the news media) were the pedophile accusations, acknowledgements, and cover-ups within the Catholic Church during the late 1990s. In these particular cases, male priests, forbidden by "laws" within the Catholic Church, from participating in any form of sexual release, found the access to young male Altar Boys an attractive alternative in directing the discharge of their sexual urges. I suppose, if one were cynical, one could then argue that Catholics around the world should be very thankful that the Catholic Church did not use "Altar Girls" in their religious services.

Let's get something straight - the area in the brain where sexual lust originates does not have eyes to see or a nose to smell; nor does it possess the sense of touch. To massage a well-worn phrase - love is blind - perhaps we can say that sexual lust is deaf, dumb, and blind. Nature, in the form of lust, does not care when, where, or how humans mate; as long as it gets to unwind itself from its biological confines. If it misses its target the first time around - guess what? - It tries again and again. It is the free-willed judgment within the confines of the moral circle of behavior, dictated and controlled by the social norms passed on from generation to generation that adult humans maneuver their sexual urges towards their individual goals. This "circle of confinement" is very strong and leads those in the evolutionary community to understand the power of group-living and our relationships with one another that must have molded our primate ancestor's behavior. But, the sexual urge to reproduce is also very powerful; Catholic priests who fell outside of those mentally created circles of confinements in order to satisfy their immediate needs had to pay the price for being caught by the keepers of their particular norms once they stepped beyond those boundaries. These "push-pull" maneuvers within the circle of confinement and the resulting behaviors that occur outside this circle, must be tolerated by the consensus of the dominate, and controlling elites of any group, and repeated "violations" of any behavioral norm over a period of time could be considered "the new norm" of behavior. A perfect example: young males and females living together outside the boundaries of marriage are no longer considered "living in sin" as they once were in America when I was a teenager in the 1960s, but the sexual violation of young male Altar Boys is still considered a major violation of social behavior by the consensus. Nature does not decide what is moral, humans do.

This free-willed judgment as to where to direct one's attention to the matter of releasing the sexual urge is what, in plain language, is called - the ATTRACTION. This is where culture, the nurture part of the nature vs. nurture debate begins to have a larger influence over nature. As a general rule, in the human mating game, the sex with the least amount of investment involved in raising children has the greatest reason to not be careful - and that my dear children, fits the description of the human male to perfection. And with males, the sexual urge is so strong that police blotters are full of males being arrested for behavior associated with the efforts of sexual relief. Some include public indecencies such as having sex with a tree, driving naked in their cars looking for someone to have sex with, and of course, forcing females to provide sexual access without their permission - rape. It is this aggressive urge, and the female manipulation of that aggressive urge within social norms, that is the heart of the book, The Rules.
But, even though the sex drive is much larger in the human male, sexual attraction occurs equally with both sexes. First, we ask the simple question: What is it about someone of the opposite sex that you find sexually attractive? Now, if you're an evolutionary psychologist, you seek the answer by also asking the question: What is your location on the planet and what is the timeline? New York City? Los Angeles? Mexico City, London? Tokyo? Soweto? Beijing? Etc. The point I'm trying to make is that like evolution itself, sexual attraction is molded by the local environment - in this case, the culture that dominates at a particular location on the planet at a given place in time. In some parts of the planet where there are limited food supplies, fat women are considered sexually attractive because it is known that they have a good food source, and thus, possibly, a rich father with many cattle as a basis of a possible dowry, and that would untimely increase a male's wealth, increase his position within a local hierarchy, which in turn, would help in his reproductive production. In modern industrial cities, if someone has a sun-tanned body, it has come to mean that they have enough time to lounge around for many idle days, thus giving glues to possible monetary wealth - and the more wealth one possesses, the greater the ability to raise children. In Victorian England, (here's our time reference) a person with a tanned body meant just the opposite -- a sign of poor status because they had to work in the fields, and thus, a poor sign of resource wealth, and thus, a poorer reproductive candidate.

Then we get into the physical side of sexual attraction. As a general rule, in my America in 2004, we brush our teeth because the action not only keeps our gums and teeth healthy, but a nice set of clean, white teeth sends a visual signal to potential mates that we are healthy enough to pass their genes, in combination with ours, into the next generation. Physical signs of good health in both sexes may also include smooth, tight, disease-free skin, bountiful hair, clear eyes and a symmetrically shaped face. And that is just above the shoulders in both sexes -- In men, a psychically attractive V-shaped upper body that includes a "six-pack" muscular stomach and firm pair of Gluteuses maximus muscles (is that the right plural?) may be just the right combination to set a receptive female's mind a-flutter. In women, a bountiful and firm pair of mammary glands and just the right WHR (waist-to-hip-ratio) would be enough to get many young men in an attentive and sexual aggressive state. And I have just mentioned the physical side of mating - or, as some people will say, the "Nature" side of mate attraction. Now, we have to mention the non-physical side - the "Nurture" side; because we humans combine both nature and nurture into our mental lists of attractions. We also may find someone of the opposite sex "sexy" by their ability to sing a song, play a guitar, dance the latest dance craze, tell a joke, write poetry, climb a mountain, or jump a rope - and unfortunately, in too many cases, how much money one has or the potential that one will obtain wealth in the future. As we say in America - "What ever turns your crank"; to get you 'turned on' biologically enough to send verbal or non-verbal suggestive signals to other member of the sex we are interested in. Basically, it is whatever non-physical venue that assists in getting gets the attraction moving in your favor and hopefully leads to mutual sexual access, but is not physically necessary for reproduction. Darwin coined this, sexual selection.

The Rules is book is about rules that have been passed from "generation to generation" as advice from women to women. (p. 9). Or, should we say, pre-sex rules; it's about the chase and capture; it's about the access and acceptance of the sexual act in a fulfilling and (hopefully) a long-lasting commitment by the male to the female. It is a book that is written solely for women, by women; it is not a science journal, nor an academic exercise in learning. It basically is a book that has taken "time-tested" cultural knowledge passed through time, expressing itself in modern written form. It is an extremely important book that should be taken very seriously amongst evolutionary psychologists (in particular, evolutionary feminists) because, if solving the problem of how to pass one's genes into the next generation is the crux of evolutionary psychology -- and sex is the mechanical process of that process - then the sexual access behavioral mechanisms used by both male and females throughout our evolutionary timeline should be of utmost importance. Perhaps, I should re-phrase that: It is not the book that is important, but the focus on this simple, but powerful mechanism of how female choice allows sexual access by the male without coercive or violent action is where our attention should lie. It is important because Darwin's sexual selection theory of male choice in modern societies may be flawed (more on this below).

Since The Rules is a book that was written by women strictly for the use of women, I feel that this is the appropriate moment to interject an evolutionary feminist theory. There is a hard-core group of evolutionary feminists out there who believe that females have controlled the evolutionary path of humankind since the dawn of human evolution. It starts with basic knowledge that females barter with males for the prize of their sexual access and the male willing to do the most for the female, won the evolutionary race. The evolutionary feminist purists believe that this bartering goes on strong today. The theory begins something like this: Knowing that the large-brained child she had to bear would take enormous time and energy beyond her capability, the female knew instinctively that she needed help in rearing the child. Previous attempts at gaining assistance from others had limited success. In some primates, females allow sexual access to all the males in their group, and scientists are in agreement that this represents an attempt to "confuse" all the males in the group into believing that they may be the father of the child, and preventing the possibility of infanticide, also, it is felt, that it would raise the possibility of assistance from one or more of the males in the female's time of need. But that theory has a minor flaw because even though it may reduce the possibility of infanticide, the multi-coupling and maneuvering all of the males must be unwieldy, and to say the least, degrading a prospect. In today's standards, what female would really want to be sexually coupled every time she came into estrus by a gang of sexually, aggressive males? When and where would the freedom of sexual choice begin? If the female switched to a single dominate male for exclusivity, then there still was the possibility of competition from other males attempting to overthrow the dominant male of that group, and once again, endangering her young; the female would then be back to square one.

However, if the male were a subordinate male, and the female were subordinate as well, and both lived on the outer edges of the inner dominate primate circle, the likelihood of non-interference from dominate males and females would be the more likely outcome. From this non-intervention position, it would have been easier for the female to demand commitment from a single male in exchange for sexual access. This gives strength to my theory (See my online book, Man in the Mist) that our primate ancestors pushed our pre-human ancestors to the edges of their hierarchies as "losers" in the primate world, leaving our subordinate pre-humans to rely more on brain power then physical strength. Like many contemporary humans today, the thought of mating with someone who is "lower" in status then themselves is alive and kicking today. This is more then studied speculation. (Let me interject here quickly, that it may also be the beginnings of concealed ovulation in the human female as the "loser" female may have been pushed aside in the group because her bright red genital sac may have been less robust in color or size from the other primate dominate females).

This then sets the stage for easier control of "loser" males because the subordinate male would be less likely to use physical force for sexual access. Sitting on the sidelines from a distance, our "loser" subordinate female could better understand the power of her own sexuality by observing the competition that unfolded in the inner circles. It is at this point, the theory goes, that the female decided on a bold stroke: trading exclusive rights to a single male of sexual access in exchange for attachment (commitment). The "loser" male most likely thought that this arrangement was better then open competition with alpha males (and a lot safer as well); plus, it instantly gave him status of sexual access bragging rights with the other subordinate males. (Just like males do today in Jr. or High School, or even in today's workplace; "getting it" on a regular basis is a tremendous status and ego boost for single males). Thus, the female created a compliant and useful tool (in the male) to assist her in childrearing through a barter system with her sexual access. (I know it sounds a bit degrading to refer to males as "tools," but this is strictly a high-level theory, and not likely found in pure form anywhere on the planet in 2004). As a tool, the male goes out and destroys any of the female's perceived enemies, forms a protective shield around the female within a group setting, and of course, fetches and returns with nutrients for her and her child. If you take this "tool" theory to the maximum amongst hard-core theorists, they also believe that women are responsible for sending men to war in order to "protect" their children, of course, all wrapped up in various layers of social hierarchies, flag waving, and national defense. [One cultural phrase that has caught on in the 2004 American Presidential race is "Security Moms." Since 9/11, it has replaced the political classification of "Soccer Moms" [Suburban, middle-class women who worry about the safety of their children].

The "choosing" of one male over another, automatically placed various layers of criteria in place for "selecting" proper behavior amongst males that they needed to follow to gain access to the female's sex, i.e., good hunter vs. bad hunter, calm vs. aggressive nature in communications - all of these criteria are passed amongst others as "rules" to be followed from male to male - similar to the female's passing their "rules" in this book review. Behaving in a manner consistent with these behavior rules, thus creates, a "hierarchy" competition amongst males for achieving this goal. Hence, the purists claim, that females are thus responsible for the creating of modern human hierarchies through competition through sexual choice, and point to the bonobos as solid evidence that hierarchical lines are blurred when the seemingly endless multi-couplings of non-restricted sex between both sexes occurs; if the lines are distinct, the more the separation, the more the competition. The theory continues that since sexual access is the focal point of creating competitive hierarchies, then restricting males access to sex, increases the bidding price for that access to the benefit of the female and her children; reducing the sexual access lowers the competition, and thus the lowers the benefits to the female's children. Thus, say the evolutionary feminists purists, the evolution of the degradation of the sexually permissive female in modern societies ("Whore," "HO," etc) and the illegalization of prostitution were originated by, and maintained by, females (they used their male "tools" to produce laws in both religious circles, then in society). If these females gave free sexual access to the males, it would destroy the bidding process so successful created over the generations and would lower the benefits to the female's progeny. Purists, also point out that since large groups of available males may not have sexual access, they will tend to bond in groups (gangs, clubs, Military units), and combine their aggressive nature toward specific goals that may not have anything to do with domestic tranquility or setting up a home and hearth. There are no doubts that an aggressive and wealthy male in 2004 is a highly-prized "catch" for females on the prowl for home, hearth, and children, and it is an accepted principle of evolutionary biology that the male without resources is generally considered a "loser" in more ways than just socially. From this theme, the evolutionary feminist purists do have an overall suggestion to create world peace: Make sure that all aggressive males between the ages of 18 - 30 have sexual access at least once a week to curb the sexual urges that Mother Nature builds up naturally in their bodies. They theorize that male military and terrorist aggression is really the competitive pursuit of resources being redirected due to of lack of female access. Instead of working diligently at finding jobs or creating services for the greater good at their geographical location, the elites of all modern societies involved find that surplus single male populations create a wonderful pool of cannon fodder that can be used to exploit for their own enrichment by sending them off to war or having them blow themselves up for the cause du jour of the moment. Thus, the purists say, if you want peace on the planet, you can diffuse the aggression that leads to competition for sexual access three ways: 1), Making sure males have productive jobs in order to accumulate resources and potential in which to attract females; 2), making sexual access easy and affordable (or free through a lottery system) through female controlled prostitution. [Please note the words: "FEMALE CONTROLLED" when used with the word prostitution]. And, 3), erase any taboos in the culture concerning male homosexual acts. The purists end with a cautionary note: The female elites would not stand one moment for such debasement of their support system, and all those who oppose this system - take heed, for there is nothing more vicious that a female protecting her young - in the present; in the future; or in evolutionary theory.

But enough of theory, let's get on with the book review. Upon reading The Rules as it stands alone, a scientist may insist, in her or his opinion that that the book is pure gibberish. A stupid book, written for poorly educated females clinging onto stupid rules that have been passed from generation to generation that are nothing more than heresy. But, I tend to disagree, and argue that the very fact that these rules have survived generation after generation lays claim to their validity. But more importantly, to evolutionary psychologists, is the importance of their universality in industrial societies (this is an important note; I haven't quite fleshed out the details in my mind, but I believe that there has to be a "critical mass" moment in societies where resources are widely available before males and females can do the mating dance in the way we know them in our modern societies).

"There we were - a secret underground, sharing the magic, passing it on, doing what historically women have done for each other since the world began - networking for success. This time, though, the stakes were larger and the victories sweeter than any corporate deal. We're talking marriage here - real, lasting marriage, not just loveless mergers - the result of doing The Rules. The simple Rules. The-How-to-Find-a-Swell-Husband Rules. " p. 3.

This book explains in simple to understand language how about how females can use the male desire for sexual access to their advantage that will benefit their progeny without mentioning this fact. Even though this book does not use the evolutionary perspective (it only touches on biology once on page 9) all of us who have gone through the mating stage of our lives can understand what these rules mean. And that is the important aspect of this non-scientific book; it's about the evolved moment in sexual selection history where the female finds her mating partner and allows sexual access without being physically violated by force. The book somehow makes sense because it has hit upon a rich vein of human behavior within social norms that both males and females perform in order to reproduce; and this book is strictly the female side of the barter. In our modern societies, this mating of a male and female has evolved into the formal institution of marriage with both sides vowing to remain together for better or worse. I am not sure when the custom of marriage began, but I believe that records indicate that it goes back as far as 6,000 years ago when humans began to use the written word. When in our primal ancestry did all this non-coercive and non-violent sexual, non-instinct driven coupling begin? As a more-than-slightly-interested individual on the evolutionary perspective, I can only speculate at this time, but it could have solidified somewhere during our trek out of Africa when our pre-human primate ancestors went in search for food out of a no-longer friendly environment and the demand for the female to seek even more assistance with child-rearing may have solidified the behavior. Or it could have happened sooner as I suggested above when dominate males and females began pushing "losers" to the outer edges of their hierarchies and females found more pliable males. No one can say for certain. But, it all comes down to the female controlling male sexual aggression in exchange for a long-term commitment to assist her. It is the female allowing insemination on her terms, and not being forced by the male. It is female choice in sexual selection. And as the evolutionary feminist purists once again repeat: that is why women are responsible for creating the human species as we know it today.

The book is only 173 pages long with all of the rules sub-divided into their own chapter. Each chapter is no more than 10 pages long. Here are the 25 rules as found in summation on page 172.

Rule 1. Be a "Creature Unlike Any Other."
Rule 2. Don't Talk to a Man First (and Don't Ask Him to Dance).
Rule 3. Don't Stare at Men or Talk Too Much.
Rule 4 Don't Meet Him Halfway or Go Dutch on a Date.
Rule 5 Don't Call Him and Rarely Return His Calls.
Rule 6 Always End Phone Calls First.
Rule 7 Don't Accept a Saturday Night Date after Wednesday.
Rule 8 Fill Up Your Time before the Date.
Rule 9 How to Act on Dates 1, 2, and 3.
Rule 10 How to Act on Dates 4 through Commitment Time.
Rule 11 Always End the Date First.
Rule 12 Stop Dating Him if He Doesn't Buy You a Romantic Gift for Your Birthday or Valentine's Day
Rule 13 Don't See Him More than Once or Twice a Week.
Rule 14 No More than Casual Kissing on the First Date.
Rule 15 Don't Rush into Sex and Other Rules for Intimacy.
Rule 16 Don't Tell Him What to Do.
Rule 17 Let him take the Lead.
Rule 18 Don't Expect a Man to Change or Try to Change Him.
Rule 19 Don't Open Up Too Fast.
Rule 20 Be Honest but Mysterious.
Rule 21 Accentuate the Positive and Other Rules for Personal Ads.
Rule 22 Don't Live with a Man (or Leave Your Things in His Apartment).
Rule 23 Don't Date a Married Man.
Rule 24 Slowly Involve Him in Your Family and Other Rules for Women with Children
Rule 25 Practice, Practice, Practice! (Or, Getting Good at The Rules).

The critics of the book when written in 2000 claim that the book is teaching young women manipulative behavior, and in rule #1 I have found some evidence of that fact: The chapter starts out with instructing the female to have self-confidence in herself and put a veneer of approachability on her behavior. "You don't grovel. You're not desperate or anxious…you don't settle. You don't chase anyone…You're an optimist…Of course, this is not how you really feel. This is how you pretend to feel until it feels real. You act as if! P. 23. Yes, this is a definite instruction to put a "false" veneer of emotion on the outside when attempting to attract a male. Perhaps, but on several occasions throughout the book, the authors strive to emphasis that the truth should be told at all times - ("Take our advice. Don't Lie. It's a law of the universe". P. 101) - but it does give advice that when telling the truth too not reveal that much of intimate truth (remain "mysterious") until the male has committed.

The book is about "training" males to enter an emotional set of being that they call "longing." for the female as the basis for succeeding. It does not go into detail exactly what this longing is all about, but I will enlighten you: It is the sexual choice of all the various positive elements that attracts the male to the female that leads to his moving toward his goal of having sexual access and passing his genes -- beautiful hair, eyes, body, elegance, humor, courage, etc. But beneath all the positive elements lies the biological urge that builds up in all males. The various positive elements are merely the enjoyable road to be taken to pass one's genes. It is this sexual choice that Geoffery Miller describes in his 2000 book, The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature.

As a male, I could not quite come away from the book without feeling that there were key elements not really dwelled on. On the surface, we can easily tell that the book is a How-To-book for women in how to make males desire them, and pursue them, but in Rule #7 we pick up clues that perhaps it is a bit deeper than that. I come away with the sense that it also is about "control" and "training" the male to perform to the female's expectations. Once again, look on the front cover for the phrase "capturing" the heart of Mr. Right. For example, "Remember, The Rules are about the long haul. The way a man behaves - rather, the way you allow him to behave toward you - during your courtship is usually the way he will behave during your marriage." And again: "Again, men are not trying to hurt you when they call you at the last minute. Don't be offended; just train them to call earlier without actually demanding it of them." And again: "Just like you have to work from nine to five no matter how you feel, we believe you have to silently train men to make plans with you …ahead of time. When you do The Rules, what you're really doing is giving men the secret, silent code that they understand very well. If you make it too easy for men, they're certain to take advantage…"pp. 53 & 54. And again: "Men must be conditioned to feel that if they want to see you seven days a week they have to marry you." P. 75. (Underlines mine).

So is the "mating game" really about female choice and once, "captured," as the front cover promises, is there a "training" period afterwards??? Somehow it almost sounds like a master training a dog….but then again, if you're a young male in today's society with all the roadblocks to sexual access, some males, according to the hierarchy rank, many sink to the mental equivalent of subservience and appear to be groveling, or should we say -- does grovel. But in Rule #15, when the relationship becomes a sexual bond, we get this advice: "Finally, don't try to change his life in any way. Don't go through his closets and throw out his favorite but disgusting old jeans and then suggest that you and he go shopping for new ones…You don't own him. Don't fix him. You end up emasculating him and he will come to see you as a domineering shrew. He wants someone who makes him feel good or better, not inadequate." P. 86 & 87. Is this a form of training? Or is just the author's individual's interpretation of male behavior after "capture?"

Now I feel is the appropriate moment to interject Darwin's theory of sexual selection - the mental choices that males and females make that are not necessary for reproduction, but are intertwined in the process. And that leaves us with a quandary. And that quandary is that Charles Darwin's theory it is that the male, in modern civilization, selects the female, and not the other way around. Here is the quote from Janet Browne's Charles Darwin: The Power of Place.

"In animal species, he had [Darwin] suggested in the Origin of Species, females would mate more readily with males displaying the largest antlers, the brightest colours, the neatest nest, or the most beautiful song, and thereby leave descendants liable to possess the same characteristics. Over the generations such features would build up in a population. Sometimes the attributes might determine the victor in a fight for possession of the female but generally they served no life-preserving adaptive function. They merely increased the chances of mating and thus the number of offspring...He was convinced that this explained many aspects of human evolution. 'Among savages the most powerful men will have the pick of the women, and they will generally leave the most descendants,' he mused to Wallace. Strictly speaking, this was not natural selection, since choice was involved. In humans, said Darwin, the choice was exercised by males. The situation was otherwise in the animal kingdom, where he believed females took the decisive role."p. 306

"Darwin certainly believed that the moral and cultural principles of his own people, and of his own day, were by far the highest that had emerged in evolutionary history. He believed that biology supported the marriage bond. He believed in innate male intellectual superiority, honed by the selective pressures of eons of hunting and fighting. 'To avoid enemies, or to attack them with success, to capture wild animals, and to invent and fashion weapons, requires the aid of the higher mental faculties, namely, observation, reason, invention, or imagination. These various faculties will thus have been continually put to the test, and selected during manhood...Thus man has ultimately become superior to women' [The Descent of Man: 2: 327] P. 346.

There are no doubts that Darwin, in 1860 Victorian England, thought that males were captains of the evolutionary ship. But The Rules is very solid evidence that something else has remained alive and well throughout generations and generations. And that is simply, female choice. If we believe the evolutionary feminists, they argue convincingly that they still are in control as it always has been, but the female is so superior in intellect that it allows the male to continue to believe that he is in control - after all, the female may need the male for physical, violent protection, and upsetting the male in knowing that he is not in control, could cause the male to lose interest in his commitment with the female. I have a few questions to ask Mr. Darwin about his theory that female sexual choice was the main venue in animal species but when modern society arrived on the scene, it switched to the male.

How come the gender switch? Did biology abruptly make a decision to prefer choices by males previously made by females? Did nature feel that male's preference towards violence and war was more beneficial than the female's preferences for nurturing and compassion? Did nature decide, in order to evolve the human species, that only males could make intelligent and correct choices to follow that path upwards? Did Mother Nature suddenly decide that the selection process which worked for billions of years to perfection needed to be "sexed up"and made a conscious decision to change. Or, was Darwin, "a most powerful man," a captive of strict cultural and behavioral social norms of his Victorian England in the mid-19th century that overwhelmingly favored males? Is it possible to conclude that if females made all the sexual selection choices, would his theories have fallen on deaf ears of his male colleagues? Would being a captive of the same social norms of an elite male hierarchy, without whose cooperation in the scientific community, have turned thumbs down to his theories if their masculine egos would not appear to be in control of the selection process? I strongly believe that the male bias was so strong in Victorian England as to reduce the human female role in sexual selection to insignificance.

In summation, The Rules are all about the female knowing that the male wants sexual access; knowing that modern society does not allow the male to sexually force himself upon the female, and making the male bid on, in words and deeds, a commitment in exchange for sexual access. " make Mr. Right obsessed with having you as his by making yourself seem unattainable. In plain language, we're talking about playing hard to get". Pp 5 & 6.


Below, I have gone over the book and extracted "wisdom" that the authors have given the female concerning information about the male. None of it, of course is scientific, but I pulled them out of the book in order to emphasis what advice is being given to females about male desires and wants. I leave them as they are, without comment, for future reference.

"If men love challenge, we become challenging!" P. 7.
"In a relationship, the man must take charge. He must propose. We are not making this up - biologically, he's the aggressor." P.9.
"Men like women who are neat and clean. They also make better mothers of their children." Pp. 16 & 17.
Men don't necessarily care for the "waif" look or like it when women wear long granny dresses and combat boots, however popular the look may be. They like women in feminine clothes." P. 18.
"Men don't care whose label you're wearing, just how your clothes look and fit on you." P. 18.
"Men like women. Don't act like a man, even if you are head of your own company". P.19.
"That man pursues woman. We trust in the natural order of things - by talking to a man first, we interfere with whatever was supposed to happen or not happen…but we believe that most men are not shy, just not really, really interested if they don't approach you." P. 27.
"Men know what they want. No one has to ask them to lunch." P.28
"By not accepting the concept that the man must pursue the woman, woman put themselves in jeopardy of being rejected or ignored, if not at the moment, then at some point in the future." P.29.
"Remember, men fall in love with your essence, not with anything in particular you say." P.35.
"Most men find chatty women annoying." P.35.
"Men love a challenge - that's why they play sports, fight wars, and raid corporations." P.36.
" Men really feel good when they work hard to see you. Don't take that away from them." P 36.
"The Rule is that men are supposed to rearrange their schedules around you, pursue, you, take cabs and trains to see you." Pp. 36 & 37.
"Men (real men) pick up women at their apartments or offices for dates. Friends and colleagues meet halfway." P.37.
"Equality and Dutch treat are fine in the workplace, but not in the romantic playing field. Love is easy when the man pursues the woman and pays for the woman most of the time. He feels that the money he spends on the food, the movie, and the cabs is the price of being with you and it's worth every penny". P. 38
" …men are irrational when it comes to love." P. 47.
"Men like to think that they are getting the prom queen."p.49.
"Men like women who are their own person, not needy leeches waiting to be rescued." 49.
"Some men like to pry secrets out of women. Women sometimes reveal more than they really care to, hoping that their revelations will draw a man closer to them. 66.
"When men are in love, they give love objects even if they are on a tight budget." P. 71
"It's common knowledge that men want as much as they can get on the first date. It's your job to slow them down." P. 78
"If he really cares about you, he will respect your boundaries. If he's a gentleman, he'll let the physical part of the relationship develop at your pace and never force anything on you." P. 79
"Men merely want to lie down next to someone they care about when they are feeling strong emotions." P. 83.
"Men love mystery! Fifty years ago it was easier to be mysterious with men. Women lived at home and their mothers answered the phone and never told the men who else called their daughters."P. 99.
"Most men decide to call you based on your photo." [discussing personal ads]. P. 105.
"Men don't necessarily propose when you're cuddled up on the couch watching a rental video, but do so when they're afraid of losing you." P. 109 & 110.
" …men very often want something more just because they can't have it." P. 110.
"Don't initiate sex, even if you want it badly. Let him be the man, the aggressor in the bedroom. Biologically, the man must pursue the woman." P.127.
"Men love independent women because they leave them alone. They love chasing women who are busy, it gives them a thrill, as big as a touchdown or a home run." P. 128.
"Men don't lie! When they say they are not in love, they mean it." p. 148.

Click here to learn more or purchase from


Copyright, Evolution's Voyage 1995-2011